As the actions of federal officers increasingly appear in news feeds, many Americans may wonder what legal actions can be taken if a federal officer violates an individual’s constitutional right. Many people may be aware of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which is a federal statute that permits individuals to sue state and local government officials for damages. While there is no equivalent statute allowing for the suit of federal government officials, the Supreme Court of the United States created that cause of action in the case Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A St. Louis, MO employment discrimination lawyer can evaluate potential claims involving violations of constitutional or civil rights, explain the legal remedies that may be available, and help individuals understand the complex legal standards that apply when government officials are involved.
What is a Bivens Action?
Similar to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a Bivens action allows for an individual to sue a federal government official. In order for a federal official to be subject to a lawsuit for a violation of an individual’s constitutional rights, the official must be “acting under color of federal authority” or, in other words, the federal official must be acting within the power of their official position. When describing its reasoning for the Bivens decision, the Supreme Court stated that allowing individuals to sue federal officials who violate constitutional rights goes to “the very essence of civil liberty.”
Which Constitutional Violations are Covered by Bivens?
While the Bivens case may seem like it opened a wide door for individuals to sue federal officers, the Supreme Court has been unwilling to expand this doctrine. In fact, only three types of cases have been permitted to be brought as Bivens actions. Individuals may sue federal officials for monetary damages:
- (1) when federal officers violate their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure (Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971));
- (2) when a member of congress sexually discriminates against a congressional staffer under the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause (Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979)); and,
- (3) when a prison official has a deliberate indifference towards a prisoner’s medical needs under the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment (Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14 (1980).
Apart from these three types of cases, no other type of Bivens action has succeeded.
Recent Cases
As seen by the narrow number of situations in which a Bivens action would apply, the Supreme Court has narrowed this doctrine even further in recent years. In 2022, the Supreme Court decided the case Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022). In Egbert, the Supreme Court declined to expand Bivens actions to cover Fourth Amendment violations by border patrol agents citing concerns about national security. In this decision, the Court also highlighted that they are unlikely to expand Bivens stating that this job is meant for Congress.
Looking to the Future
Looking to the future, the Supreme Court will be deciding on the case of Nielsen v. Watanabe by 2027. This case may limit or entirely overrule Carlson v. Green which allowed prisoners to sue federal officials under Bivens for deliberate indifference towards their medical needs. If the Supreme Court overturns Carlson, all Bivens actions may soon be on the chopping block. While it may seem like federal officials are escaping liability, there can always be changes. The Court has repeatedly stated that Congress can permit individuals to sue federal officials. While this type of civil action remains disfavored amongst Supreme Court justices, Congressional action can establish more accountability of federal officials by permitting them to be sued.
Contact TGH Litigation if you have questions about potential constitutional or civil rights claims involving government officials or need guidance regarding your legal options.